FCC ORDERS RULE CHANGES TO CONFORM WITH WRC-03

[AA7BQ]

The FCC has ordered several rule revisions to implement changes agreed to at
the international level during World Radiocommunication Conference 2003
(WRC-03). Acting Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Chief Catherine W.
Seidel signed the Order, released January 19. The changes affect §97.111,
Authorized transmissions; §97.113, Prohibited transmissions; §97.115, Third
party communications, and §97.117, International communications.

"These amendments will ensure that the Commission's Amateur Radio Service
rules conform to Article 25 of the international Radio Regulations adopted
at the 2003 World Radiocommunication Conference, and will further the
Commission's ongoing efforts to streamline its Amateur Service Rules," the
FCC said. "The overall effect of this action is to update the Part 97
Amateur Radio Service rules in the Code of Federal Regulations to conform to
now-effective international agreements."

The rule changes will become effective upon publication in The Federal
Register. The FCC Order revises:

* §97.111(a)(1) to permit "transmissions necessary to exchange messages with
other stations in the Amateur Service, except those in any country whose
administration has notified the ITU that it objects to such communications.
The FCC will issue public notices of current arrangements for international
communications." The old language permitted communication among amateur
stations in different countries "except those in any country whose
administration has given notice that it objects to such communications." The
FCC said the change does not prejudice its proposal to amend §97.111(a)(2)
to clarify that amateur stations may, at all times and on all authorized
channels, transmit communications necessary to meet essential needs and to
facilitate relief actions.

* §97.115(a)(2) to facilitate the transmission of international
communications on behalf of third parties in emergency or disaster-relief
situations, whether or not a third-party agreement is in place between the
US and the countries involved. The revision now permits communication with
any non-US station "when transmitting emergency or disaster relief
communications" as well as with any non-US station "whose administration has
made arrangements with the United States to allow amateur stations to be
used for transmitting international communications on behalf of third
parties." The revised rule further provides that no station may transmit
third-party traffic other than emergency or disaster relief communications
to a station in a country lacking a third-party arrangement. Still excepted
from the prohibition is any third party eligible to be the control operator
of an amateur station.

* §97.113(a)(4) to prohibit amateur stations exchanging messages with
amateur stations in other countries from making transmissions that are
encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except for control
signals exchanged between Earth command stations and space stations in the
Amateur-Satellite service, something Part 97 already provides for. The old
rule referred to the use of "codes and ciphers." The same rule also already
prohibits transmitting music, communications intended to facilitate a
criminal act, obscene or indecent words or language and false or deceptive
messages, signals or identification.

* §97.117 to state that amateur stations may transmit communications
incidental to the purposes of the Amateur Service and to remarks of a
personal character.

The FCC also revised §97.3 and 97.309 to update the definition of
International Morse code and of various digital codes in the amateur rules
to reflect changes in the international Radio Regulations.

Material from The ARRL Letter may be republished or reproduced in whole or
in part in any form without additional permission. Credit must be given to
The ARRL Letter and The American Radio Relay League.

[w1yw]

Quote[/b] (aa7bq @ Jan. 28 2006,09:02)]* §97.117 to state that amateur stations may transmit communications
incidental to the purposes of the Amateur Service and to remarks of a
personal character.
This makes no sense. It is a poorly written paraphrase. Anyone have the actual wording--so we can figure out what this means?

[W0UZR]

No more 3d party traffic allowed? What problems were created from that to make them decide that?

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Jan. 27 2006,14:17)]Quote[/b] (aa7bq @ Jan. 28 2006,09:02)]* §97.117 to state that amateur stations may transmit communications
incidental to the purposes of the Amateur Service and to remarks of a
personal character.
This makes no sense. It is a poorly written paraphrase. Anyone have the actual wording--so we can figure out what this means?
Only too happy to oblige, Chip. The two "shall be shall bes" in 97.117 was their error, not mine.



FINAL RULES

PART 97 – AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE

1. The authority citation for Part 97 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 1064-1068, 1081-1105, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 301-609, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 97.3(a)(27) is amended to read as follow:

§ 97.3 Definitions.

(a) ***

(27) International Morse code. A dot-dash code as defined in ITU-T Recommendation F.1 (March, 1998), Division B, I. Morse code.

*****

3. Section 97.111(a)(1) is amended to read as follows:

§ 97.111 Authorized transmissions.
(a) ***
(1) Transmissions necessary to exchange messages with other stations in the amateur service, except those in any country whose administration has notified the ITU that it objects to such communications. The FCC will issue public notices of current arrangements for international communications;
*****
4. Section 97.113(a)(4) is amended to read as follows:

§ 97.113 Prohibited transmissions.
(a) ***
(4) Music using a phone emission except as specifically provided elsewhere in this section; communications intended to facilitate a criminal act; messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except as otherwise provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language; or false or deceptive messages, signals or identification;
*****
5. Section 97.115(a)(2) is amended to read as follows:

§ 97.115 Third party communications.
(a) ***
(2) Any station within the jurisdiction of any foreign government when transmitting emergency or disaster relief communications and any station within the jurisdiction of any foreign government whose administration has made arrangements with the United States to allow amateur stations to be used for transmitting international communications on behalf of third parties. No station shall transmit messages other than emergency or disaster relief communications for a third party to any station within the jurisdiction of any foreign government whose administration has not made such an arrangement. This prohibition does not apply to a message for any third party who is eligible to be a control operator of the station.
*****
6. Section 97.117 is amended to read as follows:

§ 97.117 International communications.
Transmissions to a different country, where permitted, shall be shall be limited to communications incidental to the purposes of the amateur service and to remarks of a personal character.

7. Section 97.309(a)(1)-(3) is amended to read as follows:

§ 97.309 RTTY and data emission codes.
(a) ***
(1) The 5-unit, start-stop, International Telegraph Alphabet No. 2, code defined in ITU-T Recommendation F.1, Division C (commonly known as "Baudot").
(2) The 7-unit code specified in ITU-R Recommendations M.476-5 and M.625-3 (commonly known as "AMTOR").
(3) The 7-unit, International Alphabet No. 5, code defined in ITU-T Recommendation T.50 (commonly known as "ASCII").

[n4qa]

Be still, my throbbing heart...this is *such* exciting news!

My two favorite modes are defined as:

1. A dot-dash code.

2) The 5-unit, start-stop, International Telegraph Alphabet No. 2.

Whoopty doo!

[N4KR]

Under Prohibited transmissions: ... ...obscene or indecent words or language ...etc...... Question: Why does'nt the FCC inforce this? Profanity and four letter words are now so common on the Amateur Bands that it's almost becoming X-Rated. Can't our FCC take some kind of action, or does this fall under "Free Speach" like the X-Rated porno cable channels. We need to clean up our bands and get rid of the filthy trash who are "Violating" international law.

[ag4rq]

<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:red'>?</span></span>

[N4QX]

Quote[/b] (N4KR @ Jan. 28 2006,13:18)]Under Prohibited transmissions: ... ...obscene or indecent words or language ...etc...... #Question: Why does'nt the FCC inforce this? Profanity and four letter words are now so common on the Amateur Bands that it's almost becoming X-Rated. Can't our FCC take some kind of action, or does this fall under "Free Speach" like the X-Rated porno cable channels. We need to clean up our bands and get rid of the filthy trash who are "Violating" international law.
With respect to KR's point, it is a matter of settled law that both obscenity and indecency require reference to sexual or excretory activity. There are no magic four-letter or profane words that automatically qualify as indecent or obscene. And without the required sexual or excretory reference, profanity is not just legal, but constitutionally protected. The recourse is to turn the VFO if you don't like it.

[n0amy]

why should they worry about cussing on the bands.. it is freedom of speech and reality.. who cares if someone uses 4 letter words do we not have to worry about other things in this life except for this.. how silly....

[n5iut]

Many years ago while attending HAMCOMM in Dallas, I listened to Riley Hollingsworth speak and he said something like this, "Do not say anything on the air that you can not say in front of a child or your elders (grandparents)."

This has really stuck with me all of these years.

This was not too much of Riley to ask of me. I am happy to help provide a positive image for Amateur Radio.

I have always felt that the same should be true of Internet amateur radio groups and list servers.

73
Paul Guido, N5IUT

[w1yw]

Thanks; 117 makes sense now. Basically, watch what you say when you talk to other countries.

[W9GRN]

Quote[/b] (n0uvv @ Jan. 28 2006,14:55)]why should they worry about cussing on the bands.. it is freedom of speech and reality.. who cares if someone uses 4 letter words do we not have to worry about other things in this life except for this.. how silly....
Yeah... I always thought that amateur radio operators were above all that cb junk.How silly of me.One of the reasons I encourage young people to take on a different hobby now a days.I always thought that adults should #take the lead and watch what they say on the air,because someone is always listening. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif This is suppose to be a technical service.Leave the trash talk for 11 meters.

[n0ov]

Glad someone explained this. Thought this was going to fire up the code/no code debate again.

Wow, just think. People will be on the edge of their seats to get this update.

[KE4KMD]

Quote[/b] (n5iut @ Jan. 27 2006,16:04)]Many years ago while attending HAMCOMM in Dallas, I listened to Riley Hollingsworth speak and he said something like this, "Do not say anything on the air that you can not say in front of a child or your elders (grandparents)." #

This has really stuck with me all of these years.

This was not too much of Riley to ask of me. #I am happy to help provide a positive image for Amateur Radio.

I have always felt that the same should be true of Internet amateur radio groups and list servers.

73
Paul Guido, N5IUT
I can say as an OO in Florida that this area is a gray area. I would agree with the other person that the wording needs to be in more detail in this sections of the rules. When that will happen, well the old saying is spit in the ocean and watch it rise.

I will agree that it is not good amateur practice to use profane language. Because we have alot of kids out there that are hams.

But as it stands now this section of the rules is followed along with the broadcast rules. Which means that from 6am - 10pm at night if you use obscenties or indecent language you can be written up. But here is the catch and the gray area. But after 10pm if you use this type of wording you might not get written up because we as OO's have to go by the broadcast rules in this section.

But as an amateur radio operator you must abide by the rules and this type of language is forbidden 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

Now I know some of you are thinking we are not on the broadcast bands and I agree. But this is the method we as OO's have to use when determining this type of violation.

Now if you are confused so am I and that is why this section of the rules has to be disected thoroughly

[W5HTW]

The true sadness is in the need to legislate respect. It used to be a trait of civilized cultures.

Ed

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (n0uvv @ Jan. 28 2006,16:55)]why should they worry about cussing on the bands.. it is freedom of speech and reality.. who cares if someone uses 4 letter words do we not have to worry about other things in this life except for this.. how silly....
Welcome to the new order. I weep for the future.

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (W9GRN @ Jan. 28 2006,16:11)]Quote[/b] (n0uvv @ Jan. 28 2006,14:55)]why should they worry about cussing on the bands.. it is freedom of speech and reality.. who cares if someone uses 4 letter words do we not have to worry about other things in this life except for this.. how silly....
Yeah... I always thought that amateur radio operators were above all that cb junk.How silly of me.One of the reasons I encourage young people to take a on different hobby now a days.I always thought that adults should take the lead and watch what they say on the air,because someone is always listening. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif This is suppose to be a technical service.Leave the trash talk for 11 meters.
W9GRN:

Our amateur radio service is quickly becoming a non-technical service; this is the sad fact. Attracting the wrong folks, ham radio started sliding downhill about 10 to 15 years ago. It all began with the reduction in licensing requirements.

What else can be said?

73.

[KQ4MK]

Language offers too much depth to get stuck on a four letter vocabulary for all time, but listening to it never hurt my feelings, and using it seems to fit certain situations just fine. I always have, and will continue to avoid using "foul" language on the Ham bands, but that is because of personal choice, and not the effect of yet another government rule.

By the way, if you limit your choice of words to those regularly used by children in this day and age, you pretty much have a wide open vocabulary at your disposal. Having a VFO offers you the opportunity to find a conversation that meets your verbal standards, and leave those that do not. Likewise, foul mouthed interlopers who tend to linger on frequencies where they are not welcome either lose interest quickly, or violate other rules that catch up with them in time.

It seems to me that there is enough room in the spectrum for people to find conversation that suits their expectations, without demanding that everyone follow their lead.

Just a thought on a subject that never goes out of style....

KQ4MK

[W9IND]

Quote[/b] (n0bee @ Jan. 28 2006,14:55)]why should they worry about cussing on the bands.. it is freedom of speech and reality.. who cares if someone uses 4 letter words do we not have to worry about other things in this life except for this.. how silly....
Freedom of speech doesn't mean we're entitled to say absolutely anything we want at any time on amateur radio. Remember, the FCC still regulates the airwaves, whether or not you or I happen to agree with every single rule.

Otherwise, Howard Stern wouldn't have had to go to satellite radio to use whatever vocabulary he wanted, would he?

Beyond that, are any of us so creatively limited that we can't hold an on-air conversation without dropping a few F-bombs? As far as I'm concerned, prohibiting profanity isn't the most important rule in the world ... but USING profanity isn't the most important right in the world, either.

[w3mz]

Quote[/b] (N4QX @ Jan. 28 2006,13:45)]With respect to KR's point, it is a matter of settled law that both obscenity and indecency require reference to sexual or excretory activity. There are no magic four-letter or profane words that automatically qualify as indecent or obscene. And without the required sexual or excretory reference, profanity is not just legal, but constitutionally protected. The recourse is to turn the VFO if you don't like it.
It's nice to know that our Founding Fathers were so far sighted that they wrote about radio and abortion, things that didn't exist at the time. Yes your definition is the latest interpretation of "what they meant to say" or "what we want it to mean."

When there are kids involved, with TV you can block the channels that carry that kind of programming. With Ham Radio, if you can't try to introduce kids to the "magic of radio" without worrying about the language they will be exposed to then something is wrong.

A good rule of thumb when transmitting is to pretend your mother or daughter is listening. Someone's daughter probably IS listening. Crude language has no place in Ham Radio.

73 All, Mike w3mz

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (w3mz @ Jan. 29 2006,14:03)]Crude language has no place in Ham Radio.

73 All, Mike w3mz
[b]Amen!!!

[W0UZR]

When I hear people spewing out foul language, I automatically know that they aren't the kind of people that I want to, or will associate/mingle with.
After all, I was raised to be a way better and quality person than that, and I assume that they weren't. And they evidently had parents that were that way and didn't know how to raise children right. Or they didn't listen or learn anything from their parents if their parents were higher quality people and tried to teach them right.
And my parents always said,,,"You will be judged by the company you keep"

And that's SOOOOOO true !!


So, how do you want people to view you? As an intelligent person with decent up bringing? Or as a foul-mouthed bar bum?

[KC2LNB]

Quote[/b] (W9GRN @ Jan. 28 2006,16:11)]Quote[/b] (n0uvv @ Jan. 28 2006,14:55)]why should they worry about cussing on the bands.. it is freedom of speech and reality.. who cares if someone uses 4 letter words do we not have to worry about other things in this life except for this.. how silly....
Yeah... I always thought that amateur radio operators were above all that cb junk.How silly of me.One of the reasons I encourage young people to take a on different hobby now a days.I always thought that adults should #take the lead and watch what they say on the air,because someone is always listening. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif This is suppose to be a technical service.Leave the trash talk for 11 meters.
Oh now it's CB junk not really .it's people what they use is what they use phone radio in the street you hear it everywhere .remember anyone can cuss it's not cussing that's the hard part..........My 2 cent http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KC2LNB]

is there a list as to who should use ham radio now?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif??? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[KC2LNB]

seems to me a lot of us started in CB radio I know a lot of people on 11m who are the nicest people you want to meet do anything for ya yes this is the same people that are on 11m.also I know as many ham operators who are the same as the people i just talked about why blast people because of the type of radio they use.blame the people .who knows next it might be the race of people that use the radio .........I belive what everyone else say's cussing does not belong on the radio any radio .

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (KC2LNB @ Jan. 30 2006,03:43)]is there a list as to who should use ham radio now?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif??? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Sure. The list of licensed operators.

The above is not about who should use ham radio - it is about how we should behave when using it.

Like civilized people.

[W9GRN]

Quote[/b] (KC2LNB @ Jan. 30 2006,03:37)]Quote[/b] (W9GRN @ Jan. 28 2006,16:11)]Quote[/b] (n0uvv @ Jan. 28 2006,14:55)]why should they worry about cussing on the bands.. it is freedom of speech and reality.. who cares if someone uses 4 letter words do we not have to worry about other things in this life except for this.. how silly....
Yeah... I always thought that amateur radio operators were above all that cb junk.How silly of me.One of the reasons I encourage young people to take a on different hobby now a days.I always thought that adults should #take the lead and watch what they say on the air,because someone is always listening. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif This is suppose to be a technical service.Leave the trash talk for 11 meters.
Oh now it's CB junk not really .it's people what they use is what they use phone radio in the street you hear it everywhere .remember anyone can cuss it's not cussing that's the hard part..........My 2 cent http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Doesn't take much brains at all , does it? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (w3mz @ Jan. 29 2006,14:03)]Quote[/b] (N4QX @ Jan. 28 2006,13:45)]With respect to KR's point, it is a matter of settled law that both obscenity and indecency require reference to sexual or excretory activity. #There are no magic four-letter or profane words that automatically qualify as indecent or obscene. #And without the required sexual or excretory reference, profanity is not just legal, but constitutionally protected. #The recourse is to turn the VFO if you don't like it.
It's nice to know that our Founding Fathers were so far sighted that they wrote about radio and abortion, things that didn't exist at the time. Yes your definition is the latest interpretation of "what they meant to say" or "what we want it to mean."

When there are kids involved, with TV you can block the channels that carry that kind of programming. With Ham Radio, if you can't try to introduce kids to the "magic of radio" without worrying about the language they will be exposed to then something is wrong.

A good rule of thumb when transmitting is to pretend your mother or daughter is listening. Someone's daughter probably IS listening. Crude language has no place in Ham Radio.

73 All, Mike w3mz
You should also add that they should act as if thier parent or daughter is listening, and that they are totally sober.

Some people when not sober do resort to colorful language, that if asked about it the next day, wouldn't know they said it.

Sadly, I have heard that justification used when listening to HF on a friends radio before. "You shouldn't talk like that, your grandfather may be listening." "Its 6pm, and when he's drunk, he uses much worse language than I'm using now!"

Sad, but true, unfortunately. I think sometimes thats why many radios get sent back to have that VFO knob replaced, they wear out pretty quickly in some band segments nowadays.

[N9JAB]

Well, I haven't been at this for very long... so my question is this: if you hear someone using inappropriate languange do *you* write the fcc or amateur aux? Or does that get ignored... or what? I don't hear bad language in my neck of the woods, but I only listen to a few repeaters and they have good operators. I think I may have heard one guy slip, but he apologized to the group and it wasn't a big deal. But I if I heard someone spouting off, I think I would have to tell someone....yes..no?

What sort of penalties/fines are *actually* enforced here?

[k2dc]

W0UZR wrote "No more 3d party traffic allowed? #What problems were created from that to make them decide that?"

Read a little more carefully. #It says no third party traffic to countries that have no third party agreement in place. #That's the same as it's always been.

73,
K2DC

[w3mz]

Quote[/b] (N9JAB @ Jan. 30 2006,12:05)]Well, I haven't been at this for very long... so my question is this: if you hear someone using inappropriate languange do *you* write the fcc or amateur aux? Or does that get ignored... or what? I don't hear bad language in my neck of the woods, but I only listen to a few repeaters and they have good operators. I think I may have heard one guy slip, but he apologized to the group and it wasn't a big deal. But I if I heard someone spouting off, I think I would have to tell someone....yes..no?

What sort of penalties/fines are *actually* enforced here?
We have always been self regulated, at least as a first step. The best thing, I think, is to politely remind the other op that he is not in a private conversation, that others can hear him, that he is not setting the best example for prospective Hams who might be listening.

We are not trying to run someone else's life, how they talk at home or at the corner bar is not our concern. The language they use on our bands, the way they represent themselves and by extension the rest of us, IS our concern. I think it is just common sense.

73 All, Mike w3mz

[aa1mn]

Quote[/b] ]Under Prohibited transmissions: ... ...obscene or indecent words or language ...etc...... #Question: Why does'nt the FCC inforce this? Profanity and four letter words are now so common on the Amateur Bands that it's almost becoming X-Rated. Can't our FCC take some kind of action, or does this fall under "Free Speach" like the X-Rated porno cable channels. We need to clean up our bands and get rid of the filthy trash who are "Violating" international law.

No one is forcing you to listen, watch, or read content which you find objectionable. #When you encounter such you are certainly of an age that you should be able to make a mature enough decision as to continue listening or not. #That is why most modern amateur radio transceivers are currently equipped with frequency selection knobs and on/off switches ... should you not be familiar with the operation of either of these switches please refer to the operating manual.

Yes, it is like cable. #There are channels that contain content which I find objectionable, mainly religious and Disney oriented shows, so I avoid them like the plague. #By the way, I think they should be made available for those who, unlike myself, don't find them objectionable.

Hmm, it's not always that difficult to determine those who have progressed further up the evolutionary ladder is it?

Chuck, AA1MN

[W9GRN]

Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Jan. 31 2006,06:02)]Quote[/b] ]Under Prohibited transmissions: ... ...obscene or indecent words or language ...etc...... #Question: Why does'nt the FCC inforce this? Profanity and four letter words are now so common on the Amateur Bands that it's almost becoming X-Rated. Can't our FCC take some kind of action, or does this fall under "Free Speach" like the X-Rated porno cable channels. We need to clean up our bands and get rid of the filthy trash who are "Violating" international law.

No one is forcing you to listen, watch, or read content which you find objectionable. #When you encounter such you are certainly of an age that you should be able to make a mature enough decision as to continue listening or not. #That is why most modern amateur radio transceivers are currently equipped with frequency selection knobs and on/off switches ... should you not be familiar with the operation of either of these switches please refer to the operating manual.

Yes, it is like cable. #There are channels that contain content which I find objectionable, mainly religious and Disney oriented shows, so I avoid them like the plague. #By the way, I think they should be made available for those who, unlike myself, don't find them objectionable.

Hmm, it's not always that difficult to determine those who have progressed further up the evolutionary ladder is it?

Chuck, AA1MN
Chuck uses the words "evolutionary ladder".I prefer down hill slide. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[aa1mn]

Quote[/b] ]Chuck uses the words "evolutionary ladder".I prefer down hill slide

If that's the direction you're headed I suppose it's appropriate for you then, isn't it?

Of course, some of us are headed in the other direction ... up!

Chuck, AA1MN

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Jan. 31 2006,09:57)]Quote[/b] ]Chuck uses the words "evolutionary ladder".I prefer down hill slide

If that's the direction you're headed I suppose it's appropriate for you then, isn't it?

Of course, some of us are headed in the other direction ... up!

Chuck, AA1MN
Sorry, but sliding down into gutter language is certainly not "up".

Reminds me of the movie I went to see some years ago. It was advertised as "adult language". It certainly was NOT. It was so full of 4-letter words it sounded like an 8th grade boys locker room!!

[aa1mn]

Quote[/b] ]Sorry, but sliding down into gutter language is certainly not "up".

Reminds me of the movie I went to see some years ago. #It was advertised as "adult language". #It certainly was NOT. #It was so full of 4-letter words it sounded like an 8th grade boys locker room!!

Those who possess the ability to be offended by small words alos possess a small mind.

Chuck, AA1MN

[W5HTW]

Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Jan. 31 2006,12:41)]Quote[/b] ]Sorry, but sliding down into gutter language is certainly not "up".

Reminds me of the movie I went to see some years ago. It was advertised as "adult language". It certainly was NOT. It was so full of 4-letter words it sounded like an 8th grade boys locker room!!

Those who possess the ability to be offended by small words alos possess a small mind.

Chuck, AA1MN
Those who are stuck using them, are smaller still.

ed

[aa1mn]

Quote[/b] ]Those who are stuck using them, are smaller still.


Only to those who don't know what the words mean.

Chuck, AA1MN

[W0UZR]

Like I said, those who uses those words probably didn't have very good quality parents to start with, and wasn't able to be able to teach their kids to be quality people with good taste.

And language like that doesn't belong on the air ! If you can't speak intelligently without using that language, then do at least one thing right and,,,,

GET OUT OF HAM RADIO !!

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Jan. 31 2006,12:41)]Quote[/b] ]Sorry, but sliding down into gutter language is certainly not "up".

Reminds me of the movie I went to see some years ago. #It was advertised as "adult language". #It certainly was NOT. #It was so full of 4-letter words it sounded like an 8th grade boys locker room!!

Those who possess the ability to be offended by small words alos possess a small mind.

Chuck, AA1MN
Wasn't offended. Was disgusted. It takes a VERY small mind and lousy vocabulary to be able to express oneself only in gutter language.

When I pay someone to entertain me, I expect at least a little imagination and/or ability.

[KI4NGN]

As a people, this country has got to be one of the most hypocritical in the world. It is OK to broadcast good guys shooting bad guys on television, but God forbid that our children should see a boob. We all fervently hope that our children never have to witness a shooting in real life, but certainly have to acknowledge (and hope for our sons!) that they are going to see a boob!

Our country has become so politically correct that it makes me sick. Our country is obsessed with freedom of speech, yet we seem to go way out of our way to suppress it.

Life is not rated 'G', yet those offended by what they consider foul language insist that ham radio have that rating. We should watch our language because somewhere in the world a 10 year old may be listening? Do any of you remember the language that children use amongst themselves? Do you honestly believe that children will hear language on ham radio that they don't hear else where everyday? Maybe not at home, but out in their world?

Why not at least consider ham radio to be 'PG'....Parental Guidance? For those of you who only let your children see 'G' rated movies, that is certainly your right, but that doesn't mean that you expect (even demand) all movies to be 'G' rated, does it?

And for those about ready to jump down my throat for my opinions, I expressly do NOT advocate the use of what some call foul or crude language. What I do acknowledge is that 'foul' or 'crude' are defined by me, not by anyone else, and that another's definition may be different. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to express oneself as long as it doesn't offend. Freedom of speech is expressly about another's right to express themselves with words that others may find offensive.

We were all raised differently. Some never use words commonly thought of as crude or foul. Some use them all the time. And most of us fall in the middle somewhere. Those who don't use them at all look down on those who do, think them foul-mouthed bums? I DON'T use 'foul' language all the time, and I may even object when I feel it is being used excessively. But do you know what? If that happens, I close the book, walk away, change the channel, stop the movie, or turn my VFO knob, because of all things that I am not, it is a language cop, or (I hope) a snob!

Mike, Raleigh, NC

[aa1mn]

Quote[/b] ]As a people, this country has got to be one of the most hypocritical in the world. It is OK to broadcast good guys shooting bad guys on television, but God forbid that our children should see a boob. We all fervently hope that our children never have to witness a shooting in real life, but certainly have to acknowledge (and hope for our sons!) that they are going to see a boob!

Our country has become so politically correct that it makes me sick. Our country is obsessed with freedom of speech, yet we seem to go way out of our way to supress it.

Life is not rated 'G', yet those offended by what they consider foul language insist that ham radio have that rating. We should watch our language because somewhere in the world a 10 year old may be listening? Do any of you remember the language that children use amongst themselves? Do you honestly believe that children will hear language on ham radio that they don't hear else where everyday? Maybe not at home, but out in their world?

Why not at least consider ham radio to be 'PG'....Parental Guidance? For those of you who only let your children see 'G' rated movies, that is certainly your right, but that doesn't mean that you expect (even demand) all movies to be 'G' rated, does it?

And for those about ready to jump down my throat for my opinions, I expressly do NOT advocate the use of what some call foul or crude language. What I do acknowledge is that 'foul' or 'crude' are defined by me, not by anyone else, and that another's definition may be different. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to express oneself as long as it doesn't offend. Freedom of speech is expressly about another's right to express themselves with words that others may find offensive.

We were all raised differently. Some never use words commonly thought of as crude or foul. Some use them all the time. And most of us fall in the middle somewhere. Those who don't use them at all look down on those who do, think them foul-mouthed bums? I DON'T use 'foul' language all the time, and I may even object when I feel it is being used excessively. But do you know what? If that happens, I close the book, walk away, change the channel, stop the movie, or turn my VFO knob, because of all things that I am not, it is a language cop, or (I hope) a snob!



Well put and articulately expressed.

Chuck, AA1MN

[aa1mn]

Quote[/b] ]Wasn't offended. #Was disgusted. #It takes a VERY small mind and lousy vocabulary to be able to express oneself only in gutter language.

When I pay someone to entertain me, I expect at least a little imagination and/or ability.

People are offended only by what they are not able to understand. #It is the ignorant who cannot -- those of VERY small minds -- or will not make use of the vocabulary available to them.

Welcome to ignorance.

Chuck, AA1MN

[W9GRN]

People cussing on the air is like weak minds trying to express themselves.No imagination or talent at all.

[KI4NGN]

Weak minds? How much more self-righteous and judgemental could you possibly be?!?

But, of course, I respect your right to be that way. I disagree and find your attitude to be ignorant. My right. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[W9GRN]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Feb. 01 2006,07:23)]Weak minds? How much more self-righteous and judgemental could you possibly be?!?

But, of course, I respect your right to be that way. I disagree and find your attitude to be ignorant. My right. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I feel the same way towards you.My right!Have a great day! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[KI4NGN]

GRN - Isn't freedom of speech wonderful?!?! Seriously...I love it!

Mike, Raleigh, NC

[W9GRN]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Feb. 01 2006,08:02)]GRN - Isn't freedom of speech wonderful?!?! Seriously...I love it!

Mike, Raleigh, NC
NGN-Great isn't.So do I! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Feb. 01 2006,05:06)]Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to express oneself as long as it doesn't offend. Freedom of speech is expressly about another's right to express themselves with words that others may find offensive.
I strongly disagree and it is an important difference that some lawyers seem to forget regularly. Freedom of speech is not about words. It was never about words. Freedom of speech is about ideas. Freedom of speech is about being able to freely express ideas or thoughts or positions or beliefs that someone else finds wrong or offensive. It is not and has never really been about using filthy words simply for shock effect (which is all it is).

"I may disagree with what you say but will defend your right to say it" is something I strongly agree with but it is about ideas, not the words used to express or obscure those ideas.

We have become much less civilized since we started confusing ideas with offensive words.

Foul language is widely recognized as what it is among all classes and levels of people. Simply out of place in a reasonable conversation. Period.

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Feb. 01 2006,06:50)]Quote[/b] ]Wasn't offended. #Was disgusted. #It takes a VERY small mind and lousy vocabulary to be able to express oneself only in gutter language.

When I pay someone to entertain me, I expect at least a little imagination and/or ability.

People are offended only by what they are not able to understand. #It is the ignorant who cannot -- those of VERY small minds -- or will not make use of the vocabulary available to them.

Welcome to ignorance.

Chuck, AA1MN
No, Chuck, you are completely wrong. People are NOT offended by what they do not understand. They can't be. I am offended ONLY by that I fully understand to be beneath the standards of civilized conduct. Ignorance is 180 degrees from that.

You are correct with the second part. It is the ignorant who cannot or will not make use of the rich vocabulary available to them, and therefore resort to crude gutter language.

[KI4NGN]

JF, certainly the goal of freedom of speech is to protect the expression of ideas, but the most prevalent method of expression is the use of words. Words are used to convey an idea, and if you supress the use of words, any words, then you are suppressing the conveyance of an idea.

You forget that "crude gutter language" is also a part of the rich vocabulary. Those words most definitely express an idea.
"I was so sick yesterday that when I sneezed I almost ".....
"had a bowel movement in my pants", or "filled my shorts with excrement", or "sh** my pants".

Which do people use? Culture is just as much a part of words chosen for expression as education. And some words are culturally independent. The "sh**" word has been quoted out of the mouths of United States Presidents, CEO's of huge corporations, politicians, Pulitzer prize winning authors, journalists, ditch diggers, policemen, carpenters, computer programmers, engineers, and just about any other occupation or setting you may think of. Are all of these people uneducated, crude, or ignorant, or are they just using words available to them, expressing a very explicit idea? Maybe the idea was crude and that was the intent!

It is a fact that the most common two-word phrase uttered by an airline pilot, the last words out of his mouth just before a crash, has been "Oh shi**". Do you think them ignorant, not making use of their vocabulary, or trying to shock those listening to the flight recorder? Or is it just possible that they are conveying a very explicit idea of how they are feeling at that moment?

So many people use that word, yet would you call them all uncivilized, uneducated, ignorant?

Why don't you like those words? Is it because you understand the definition of those words, the idea that they convey, and it is that idea that you don't like being expressed?

I picked that particular word because I heard it used on 80 meters the other day. It did surprise me. The other member of the QSO responded in the context of the conversation but used the word "poop". I got a chuckle out of that. I wasn't offended, and noted nothing more (noted because I was surprised) than the use of the word was normal for one and not the other. That doesn't make the gent who used the word ignorant, uneducated, uncivilized; nothing derogatory. He just expressed himself with a word that he was comfortable with and conveyed his idea. His vocabulary may be just as rich and deep as yours, but maybe, just maybe, he has a little more breadth because he allows for the use of words that you don't.

I am not being critical of you, not in the least. I'm just trying to express an idea that suggests we shouldn't be critical of anyone for the words that they choose for the expression of their ideas, or at the very least not try to surpress them.

And, as I suggested in my previous post, if you are trully offended, change frequency. But please, please don't insist that the world adhere to your standards, or justify that insistence by saying that your standards are the norm because that is just too easy to refute.

Mike, Raleigh, NC

By the way, I've been living in Raleigh NC for almost 16 years. When I first moved here I noticed that some people said "Aw sh**", and others said "Aw shoot". The latter were trying to express exactly the same idea without actually using the word. I have always found this amusing. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[aa1mn]

Quote[/b] ]No, Chuck, you are completely wrong. #People are NOT offended by what they do not understand. #They can't be. #I am offended ONLY by that I fully understand to be beneath the standards of civilized conduct. #Ignorance is 180 degrees from that.

You are correct with the second part. #It is the ignorant who cannot or will not make use of the rich vocabulary available to them, and therefore resort to crude gutter language.

You do realize that laying the blame on the the others, in this case those who use what you percieve as "crude" language, is not only further sign of YOUR ignorance, not theirs, but is a clear sign of a much deeper sense of personal insecurity?

Really, now, who but the insecure could -- or would -- have the need to label the words of others as "gutter language" unless they didn't understand the meaning and intent of such words to begin with?

You can dance around the subject all you want, put in any terms you like but it doesn't chang the fact language isn't offensive only those who label as such are.

Thanks for proving my point and once again showing your ignorance.

Chuck, AA1MN

[N2MMM]

Amateur radio is for strictly CLEAN "G-RATED" communications. Can't live with that? GET A CELL PHONE.

[aa1mn]

Quote[/b] ]Amateur radio is for strictly CLEAN "G-RATED" communications. Can't live with that? GET A CELL PHONE.

Can't live with the fact that morality can't be legislated? DON'T LIVE!

[kb2wye]

Ah, the wonderful world of amateur radio... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (N2MMM @ Feb. 02 2006,06:34)]Amateur radio is for strictly CLEAN "G-RATED" communications. Can't live with that? GET A CELL PHONE.
I hope that no one misunderstands me, I do not advocate the use of any language perceived by some as offensive, I merely support freedom of speech, which includes using whatever words one chooses in that expression.

That said, my question to the previous poster....


Says who? You?

If you can't live with a PG rating in a service/hobby that is overwhelmingly populated by adults, change hobbies.

[n1uq]

Quote[/b] (N4QX @ Jan. 28 2006,13:45)]Quote[/b] (N4KR @ Jan. 28 2006,13:18)]Under Prohibited transmissions: ... ...obscene or indecent words or language ...etc...... #Question: Why does'nt the FCC inforce this? Profanity and four letter words are now so common on the Amateur Bands that it's almost becoming X-Rated. Can't our FCC take some kind of action, or does this fall under "Free Speach" like the X-Rated porno cable channels. We need to clean up our bands and get rid of the filthy trash who are "Violating" international law.
With respect to KR's point, it is a matter of settled law that both obscenity and indecency require reference to sexual or excretory activity. #There are no magic four-letter or profane words that automatically qualify as indecent or obscene. #And without the required sexual or excretory reference, profanity is not just legal, but constitutionally protected. #The recourse is to turn the VFO if you don't like it.
First, I can think off two four letter words that fit the sexual or excretory activity test that are currently used in the Ham Radio bands.

Second, there is nothing wrong with Free Speech, if I hear something I don't like than I can remove myself from the situation, however, there is a limited band of frequencies that we are allowed by law to use. The use of these frequencies is currently regulated by law, therefore, I don't or may not be able to just turn the VFO to get away from the language being used. Your rights to fill the airways with vibrations emanating from your garbage mouth do not supersede my rights to use the same airways. Here, you do not have the right to force us to just spin the VFO, of course this is just MHO.

[aa1mn]

Quote[/b] ]The use of these frequencies is currently regulated by law, therefore, I don't or may not be able to just turn the VFO to get away from the language being used. Your rights to fill the airways with vibrations emanating from your garbage mouth do not supersede my rights to use the same airways. Here, you do not have the right to force us to just spin the VFO, of course this is just MHO.

Uh, ever hear of the on/off switch?

In all seriousness, though, it's hard to imagine with all the bands available to amateurs at this time that anyone would at anyone time find each and every frequency on every band filled with chit chat they find objectionable. Heck, most of the bands are dead anyway.

Chuck, AA1MN

[n1uq]

Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Jan. 31 2006,06:02)]Quote[/b] ]Under Prohibited transmissions: ... ...obscene or indecent words or language ...etc...... #Question: Why does'nt the FCC inforce this? Profanity and four letter words are now so common on the Amateur Bands that it's almost becoming X-Rated. Can't our FCC take some kind of action, or does this fall under "Free Speach" like the X-Rated porno cable channels. We need to clean up our bands and get rid of the filthy trash who are "Violating" international law.

No one is forcing you to listen, watch, or read content which you find objectionable. #When you encounter such you are certainly of an age that you should be able to make a mature enough decision as to continue listening or not. #That is why most modern amateur radio transceivers are currently equipped with frequency selection knobs and on/off switches ... should you not be familiar with the operation of either of these switches please refer to the operating manual.

Yes, it is like cable. #There are channels that contain content which I find objectionable, mainly religious and Disney oriented shows, so I avoid them like the plague. #By the way, I think they should be made available for those who, unlike myself, don't find them objectionable.

Hmm, it's not always that difficult to determine those who have progressed further up the evolutionary ladder is it?

Chuck, AA1MN
I went to the doctors today again as my hands were always being chewed up and bleeding when ever I went anywhere.
Oops, time to go. Don't mind my hands dragging on the ground, when I get home to the tree I'll lick then clean.

"Hmm, it's not always that difficult to determine those who have progressed further up the evolutionary ladder is it?"

Judging by you comments all I have to do is go around and use my freedom of speech with total disregard of my surroundings.

Yep, it's pretty easy to determine those who have not progressed further up the evolutionary ladder is it chuck?"
[B]

[n1uq]

Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Jan. 31 2006,09:57)]Quote[/b] ]Chuck uses the words "evolutionary ladder".I prefer down hill slide

If that's the direction you're headed I suppose it's appropriate for you then, isn't it?

Of course, some of us are headed in the other direction ... up!

Chuck, AA1MN
I suppose if you walk around with your head up and locked, you'd would have your directions all mixed up.

[n1uq]

By the way Chuck, I notice that you are not using any of the words here on QRZ that you are trying very hard to defend.

Could it be that you know they would not be allowed. Certainly your freedom of speech and the right to use any words to express your ideas should be allowed here.

Could it also be you understand that this is the wrong place to express "your" freedom of speech in words of one syllable.

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Feb. 02 2006,05:36)]Quote[/b] ]No, Chuck, you are completely wrong. #People are NOT offended by what they do not understand. #They can't be. #I am offended ONLY by that I fully understand to be beneath the standards of civilized conduct. #Ignorance is 180 degrees from that.

You are correct with the second part. #It is the ignorant who cannot or will not make use of the rich vocabulary available to them, and therefore resort to crude gutter language.

You do realize that laying the blame on the the others, in this case those who use what you percieve as "crude" language, is not only further sign of YOUR ignorance, not theirs, but is a clear sign of a much deeper sense of personal insecurity?

Really, now, who but the insecure could -- or would -- have the need to label the words of others as "gutter language" unless they didn't understand the meaning and intent of such words to begin with?

You can dance around the subject all you want, put in any terms you like but it doesn't chang the fact language isn't offensive only those who label as such are.

Thanks for proving my point and once again showing your ignorance.

Chuck, AA1MN
Sorry, Chuck, you're still wrong, and attempting to turn an argument around illogically isn't helping your case.

Ignorance is defined as "lack of knowledge". (Has nothing to do with intelligence, incidentally.) So in your book, having a broader vocabulary, so that you do not have to rely on 4-letter words, is ignorance? Rather a strange concept, it seems to me.

And if I had no knowledge of the meaning of words, I would have no way to label them, now would I? It is exactly knowledge of the meaning, gleaned from the usage of others, that causes me to avoid them!

No personal insecurity here just because I don't "cuss up a blue streak". That is a ridiculous notion and, again, about 180 degrees from the truth. I perceive insecurity in those who must debase the listener by using gutter language more suited to pre-adolescence than responsible adults. My security is just fine, and a Master's degree will indicate no real problem with ignorance (as if it were relevant).

And just who is blaming others? I was merely stating some FACTS about civility that some people try to ignore in their attempt to justify use of language that really should be beneath them.

Sorry, there is STILL no logical justification for using poor language, when the rich heritage of the English language (including the American subset) is available for those who will just apply themselves and learn a little bit of it.

Your point is still wrong, and there is no ignorance of the subject on this end. It is really not helping your case when you label someone "ignorant" for displaying a superior knowledge of the subject and its ramifications.

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Feb. 02 2006,06:47)]Can't live with the fact that morality can't be legislated? #DON'T LIVE!


Another popular but erroneous statement. Proper legislation is always based in morals. Has to be. Isn't murder immoral? We legislate against it. Isn't endangering others with your car immoral? Certainly, therefore all the laws governing driving. Isn't it immoral to evade paying your fair share of the cost of government (taxes)? I could go on for pages and pages, but here is the bottom line:

Legislation MUST legislate morality, or it has no legitimate purpose.

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Feb. 02 2006,08:05)]If you can't live with a PG rating in a service/hobby that is overwhelmingly populated by adults, change hobbies.
Right. We should hear adult language, not pottymouths. It is primarily an adult medium.

[aa1mn]

Quote[/b] ]By the way Chuck, I notice that you are not using any of the words here on QRZ that you are trying very hard to defend.

Could it be that you know they would not be allowed. Certainly your freedom of speech and the right to use any words to express your ideas should be allowed here.

Could it also be you understand that this is the wrong place to express "your" freedom of speech in words of one syllable.

Yes, on all counts.

Not using certain words doesn't bother me any more than the use of certain words.

I aprreciate the fact that, as much as I disagree with the owner of this site to CENSOR language of that sort, I also acknowledge it is well within his rights to do so as he runs, and therefore regulates, it to his choosing.

There is no discrepency in it, if that is what you're implying, as I do use such language on other sites that do allow -- and often encourage -- such terms to be used.

I'm not offended by language of any sort.

Fair enough?

Chuck, AA1MN

[aa1mn]

Quote[/b] ]Sorry, Chuck, you're still wrong, and attempting to turn an argument around illogically isn't helping your case.

Ignorance is defined as "lack of knowledge". (Has nothing to do with intelligence, incidentally.) So in your book, having a broader vocabulary, so that you do not have to rely on 4-letter words, is ignorance? Rather a strange concept, it seems to me.

And if I had no knowledge of the meaning of words, I would have no way to label them, now would I? It is exactly knowledge of the meaning, gleaned from the usage of others, that causes me to avoid them!

No personal insecurity here just because I don't "cuss up a blue streak". That is a ridiculous notion and, again, about 180 degrees from the truth. I perceive insecurity in those who must debase the listener by using gutter language more suited to pre-adolescence than responsible adults. My security is just fine, and a Master's degree will indicate no real problem with ignorance (as if it were relevant).

And just who is blaming others? I was merely stating some FACTS about civility that some people try to ignore in their attempt to justify use of language that really should be beneath them.

Sorry, there is STILL no logical justification for using poor language, when the rich heritage of the English language (including the American subset) is available for those who will just apply themselves and learn a little bit of it.

Your point is still wrong, and there is no ignorance of the subject on this end. It is really not helping your case when you label someone "ignorant" for displaying a superior knowledge of the subject and its ramifications.

Are you really that deluded to actually believe, at your age, that it's the words that people use -- not how they use them -- that determines their character or intelligence?

I take it you never really learned to socialize very well with others of your own species have you?

There's no time like the present is there? So why not get off your holier-than-though attitude and seek out professional help from a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist to help out with your persistent sense of denial and superiority complex?

Or do you think people find that attractive in a person?

Chuck, AA1MN

[aa1mn]

Quote[/b] ]Another popular but erroneous statement. Proper legislation is always based in morals. Has to be. Isn't murder immoral? We legislate against it. Isn't endangering others with your car immoral? Certainly, therefore all the laws governing driving. Isn't it immoral to evade paying your fair share of the cost of government (taxes)? I could go on for pages and pages, but here is the bottom line:

Legislation MUST legislate morality, or it has no legitimate purpose.

So you're equating using the "F" word with murder, endangering others lives and not paying taxes?

Chuck, AA1MN

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Feb. 02 2006,13:23)]Quote[/b] ]Another popular but erroneous statement. #Proper legislation is always based in morals. #Has to be. #Isn't murder immoral? #We legislate against it. #Isn't endangering others with your car immoral? #Certainly, therefore all the laws governing driving. #Isn't it immoral to evade paying your fair share of the cost of government (taxes)? #I could go on for pages and pages, but here is the bottom line: #

Legislation MUST legislate morality, or it has no legitimate purpose.

So you're equating using the "F" word with murder, endangering others lives and not paying taxes?

Chuck, AA1MN
Of course not, Chuck. Read the comment again and note the word "another". Since you advocate a limited vocabulary, I strongly recomment looking that one up and adding it to your list of "good words", even if it does have 3 too many letters.

All of the subjects you mentioned are reflected in laws. All laws are not equal. A little education would let you see that some crimes are more serious than others, and to state that there are laws against all of them is not "equating" them.

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Feb. 02 2006,13:21)]Quote[/b] ]Sorry, Chuck, you're still wrong, and attempting to turn an argument around illogically isn't helping your case.

Ignorance is defined as "lack of knowledge". #(Has nothing to do with intelligence, incidentally.) #So in your book, having a broader vocabulary, so that you do not have to rely on 4-letter words, is ignorance? #Rather a strange concept, it seems to me.

And if I had no knowledge of the meaning of words, I would have no way to label them, now would I? #It is exactly knowledge of the meaning, gleaned from the usage of others, that causes me to avoid them!

No personal insecurity here just because I don't "cuss up a blue streak". #That is a ridiculous notion and, again, about 180 degrees from the truth. #I perceive insecurity in those who must debase the listener by using gutter language more suited to pre-adolescence than responsible adults. #My security is just fine, and a Master's degree will indicate no real problem with ignorance (as if it were relevant).

And just who is blaming others? #I was merely stating some FACTS about civility that some people try to ignore in their attempt to justify use of language that really should be beneath them.

Sorry, there is STILL no logical justification for using poor language, when the rich heritage of the English language (including the American subset) is available for those who will just apply themselves and learn a little bit of it.

Your point is still wrong, and there is no ignorance of the subject on this end. #It is really not helping your case when you label someone "ignorant" for displaying a superior knowledge of the subject and its ramifications.

Are you really that deluded to actually believe, at your age, that it's the words that people use -- not how they use them -- that determines their character or intelligence?

I take it you never really learned to socialize very well with others of your own species have you?

There's no time like the present is there? #So why not get off your holier-than-though attitude and seek out professional help from a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist to help out with your persistent sense of denial and superiority complex?

Or do you think people find that attractive in a person?

Chuck, AA1MN
Calm down. Never said that. It is BOTH the words one uses, and how they are used, that reflect on the character, intelligence and education of the person. I would suggest a little study of the great men and women all through time. Start with the founders of this country. You will NOT find profanity in the founding documents or personal letters of the people who founded this great nation. That is just one example, there are millions more.

Social skills are highly related to how well one works with and communicates with others. One does not communicate well when one limits himself to gutter language. That's a given among civilized people. (I have seen and worked with people whose careers were unnecessarily limited because of their careless habit of profanity. That's a fact in the real world.) Crude language is very unattractive, by the way.

I would suggest that anyone stuck with middle-school vocabulary many years later is the one in need of help. Social development should continue all one's life.

No denial or superiority complex here. I'm just an ordinary man who has learned a few life lessons and relate closely with many, many people.

I will hope that my ideas may surprise or even offend some people. I would hope that my language never will.

[aa1mn]

Quote[/b] ]Quote (aa1mn @ Feb. 02 2006,13:23)
Quote
Another popular but erroneous statement. Proper legislation is always based in morals. Has to be. Isn't murder immoral? We legislate against it. Isn't endangering others with your car immoral? Certainly, therefore all the laws governing driving. Isn't it immoral to evade paying your fair share of the cost of government (taxes)? I could go on for pages and pages, but here is the bottom line:

Legislation MUST legislate morality, or it has no legitimate purpose.


So you're equating using the "F" word with murder, endangering others lives and not paying taxes?

Chuck, AA1MN

Of course not, Chuck. Read the comment again and note the word "another". Since you advocate a limited vocabulary, I strongly recomment looking that one up and adding it to your list of "good words", even if it does have 3 too many letters.

All of the subjects you mentioned are reflected in laws. All laws are not equal. A little education would let you see that some crimes are more serious than others, and to state that there are laws against all of them is not "equating" them.


If you're not equating using language with murder, driving, and paying taxes then why did you cite those examples in response to a post about that?

Chuck, AA1MN

[W2ILP]

I think that "...communications incidental to the purposes of the Amateur Service and to remarks of a personal character." leaves us to an open discussion and on the one hand (for some people) "remarks" over the air about "personal characters or related matters" might not be accepted as appropriate for the children or grandmas of some people. The person who says he or she knows what is objectionable when he or she hears it, can never accurately define what the limits can be. It has also been hard for the FCC and various courts to determine exactly where to draw the line on obscenity, lewdness, or objectionable language. Is a dirty joke dirty if it has two clean meanings and only one dirty one and can be innocently laughed at?

In order to comply with FCC regulations, I usually limit my on the air transmissions to just giving signal reports and describing my equipment. When on a club net, I stay on topic and avoid talk of political or commercial nature. I must keep transmissions short on most frequencies and this is common courtesy because only one station can hold one frequency at a time and not be "broadcasting" BUT on QRZ and other chat groups I join others whose communications are diversified. This has been the trend. People tend to say whatever they feel like on the Internet, especially Bloggers. Obviously children and people of all nations may be reading the mail of open chat groups...so maybe the same FCC rules should hold...BUT NO! IMHO it is time to modernize the whole world of communication. if Blogging and name calling is OK on the Internet (where it would be hard to prevent it at this point in time, by any enforcing method or by any real accurate limiting restrictions or censorship) ...then why pick on the Amateur Radio "service" communication and threaten it with enforcement due to antiquated ITU rules?
Amateur Radio is not a service. Just like Internet communication, it may only be a hobby for most. It is only a "service" for those Hams who volunteer to optionally serve. If it is supposed to be a service...I see no regulation that requires any ham as an individual to serve anyone or any purpose. The basis and purpose of Amateur radio as described in Part 97 is only a list of suggestions for what may be expected of Hams AS A GROUP, in order to justify their use of the spectrum.

IMHO. Groups which share their opinions about diverse controversial matters may be of service to the U.S. They provoke thought and give expression to the true meaning of free speech. They encourage research and reading to justify opinions. They give people of different areas and subcultures a better understanding of each other's personal opinions and backgrounds. IMHO this is healthy. It is what the U.S. should be all about because freedom of speech with freedom of fear from being prosecuted because your opinion may vary from the majority should be recognized as an important part of our basic freedoms, which IMHO should take precedence over the ambiguous basis and purpose of a hobby's optional "service", and communications regulations of over a half century ago. When the rules were made all international communication took place over less than 30 MHz of bandwidth (the HF bands). Today the spectrum of communication are a lot broader. Should we have narrow minds when our communications media are no longer narrow?

Ham Radio has been a part of my education. The Hams I have met on the air, on the Internet and in person have helped me understand a lot about the sociology of the U.S. and foreign countries as well....not just communications technology. I am 72 years old and continue to learn. Messages and posts might not have always been entirely based on "good will" but they did help form some good information and even corrected many of my own errors.

w2ilp (Impeding Logical Purpose?)

[KI4NGN]

How about Intelligient Logical Perspective? Thank you for your post.

Chuck, I am glad that you agree with my perspective, but I have to say that I disagree with your approach of insulting those who may disagree with you. All that accomplishes is to change a provocative exchange of ideas and opinions into bickering.

JF - Potty mouths versus adult language? Gutter language? Civilized versus uncivilized? That is certainly expressing a superior attitude to those who use words that you don't.

I have no doubt that there are no 'objectionable' words in official documents of any sort. Why would there be? These are not communications of personal experiences or views or opinions, but official communications conveying laws and purpose and intention. Personal communications are entirely different from business or legislative communications. The 'objectionable' words are used in personal conveyances related to personal human experiences and culture.

The authors of those official documents most certainly used what you would call objectionable words with personal issues. As much as many disliked him, including me, would you call Richard Nixon uncivilized, stuck with a middle school vocabulary? I heard him relating a personal conversation on 60 Minutes calling someone he didn't like "a little sh**".

Do you think Gore Vidal or Kurt Vonnegut are uncivilized or uneducated?

By the way, I don't type out some words explicitly because I recognize that this is a private web site that is open to the public and is subject to censorship by the owner and his moderators. I have no objection to that, it is his site, so I censor myself in the hope that my post survives.

The ham bands are reserved for ALL hams, not for just those who use language you object to or for those who don't, but all. I'm glad that you agree that ham radio is an adult communication medium, but disagree with your position that adult language does not include words that you find objectionable. That is an attitude fostered by the cultural conditions in which you were raised and obviously still inhabit. I am 52 years old, have lived on the east and west coasts, and have been a software engineer/programmer for 30+ years. I've been surrounded by well educated, intelligient people all of my adult life, and I can assure you that your 'objectionable' words were and are used by most of them. This is not an opinion but a fact.

I lived in San Diego for ten years, and once I met a couple travelling on vacation. They asked me about the 'cultural' life, where was it to be found in San Diego. #They were referring to art, music, plays, etc. They felt they were 'cultured', well educated with refined tastes. Anything outside of that definition was uncultured. That was such an elitist, superior attitude that I found very insulting. They were so superior, so educated, so refined, yet so ignorant as to be able to recognize that their's was but one of many cultures in this country and world, and that their's was neither inferior or superior to any other.

The language that we use in our personal communication is based upon education and culture. You cannot separate the two. Like it or not, your culture, where the objectionable words are never used, is a small minority. I am not suggesting that is good or bad, right or wrong, but the way things are.

Mike, Raleigh, NC

[W0UZR]

Quote[/b] (N2MMM @ Feb. 02 2006,07:34)]Amateur radio is for strictly CLEAN "G-RATED" communications. Can't live with that? GET A CELL PHONE.
Well,, Hello M & M's

And I agree with
you and will say,,,,

"And YAH !!!!

GET A CELL PHONE !!!"

[KI4NGN]

Well, I've tried to have reasonable discourse here, but with responses like the last, which are basically if I don't like clean, G-rated ham radio, then I can leave, so I'll stop trying.

Unfortunately for you gents ham radio is PG, not G, no matter how much you don't like that. You can either accept it in silence, accept it but complain, or YOU can leave.

Peace.

Mike, Raleigh, NC

[aa1mn]

Quote[/b] ]Chuck, I am glad that you agree with my perspective, but I have to say that I disagree with your approach of insulting those who may disagree with you. All that accomplishes is to change a provocative exchange of ideas and opinions into bickering.


Thanks, Mike, for acknowledging the support provided on my part, always glad to lend it where it's due.

It's okay if you, and others, disagree with what views I hold. Please notice, however, any harsh tone on my part is reserved and dircted at those with a perspective too narrow to recoginze there are those who hold a valid view different than theirs ... insulting it may be but justified as well.

Also please not, insults were implied overtly or indirectly at myself for supporting that language that may be deemed offensive by some. Believe me, there is nothing demeaning to a person who uses such language, the only teacher I had who deserved any recognition at all was a college professor who frequently employeed such terms ... even to the point of calling me half-assed (once I straightened him out by explaining I was a complete ass we got along fine).

Take care.

Chuck, AA1MN

[W9IND]

Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Jan. 31 2006,06:02)]Quote[/b] ]Under Prohibited transmissions: ... ...obscene or indecent words or language ...etc...... Question: Why does'nt the FCC inforce this? Profanity and four letter words are now so common on the Amateur Bands that it's almost becoming X-Rated. Can't our FCC take some kind of action, or does this fall under "Free Speach" like the X-Rated porno cable channels. We need to clean up our bands and get rid of the filthy trash who are "Violating" international law.

No one is forcing you to listen, watch, or read content which you find objectionable. When you encounter such you are certainly of an age that you should be able to make a mature enough decision as to continue listening or not. That is why most modern amateur radio transceivers are currently equipped with frequency selection knobs and on/off switches ... should you not be familiar with the operation of either of these switches please refer to the operating manual.

Yes, it is like cable. There are channels that contain content which I find objectionable, mainly religious and Disney oriented shows, so I avoid them like the plague. By the way, I think they should be made available for those who, unlike myself, don't find them objectionable.

Hmm, it's not always that difficult to determine those who have progressed further up the evolutionary ladder is it?

Chuck, AA1MN
Ham radio is like cable???

I think not. You or anyone else may choose to treat both media the same -- i.e., change the channel/frequency whenever you see/hear something you don't like -- but the FCC has the final say on what is and isn't allowed on the airwaves. And we hams are just as subject to such regulations as AM, FM and TV broadcasters are.

In other words, we can all sit in here and scream about freedom of speech or personal morality till the cows come home, but that isn't relevant to the FCC's right to determine what is and isn't allowed on the airwaves.

As I've pointed out before ... if freedom of speech meant that anyone could say anything on the airwaves, Howard Stern wouldn't have had to go to satellite radio to be uncensored.

73 to all,
Brian, W9IND

[K4JF]

Looks like I am in the overwhelming majority of the general public on this issue. In a recent poll, 75% of Americans say that profanity bothers them "somewhat" or "a lot". Among those worst offended are women: (from a news report) "Sensitivity to the lack of courtesy varies among groups, with women and older Americans most likely to be bothered by bad behavior. The biggest difference between the sexes is on the appropriateness of public cursing: Fifty-eight percent of women say it bothers them a lot, compared with 38 percent of men -- a big 20-point gap.

Women also are 16 points more likely than men to be very bothered by people who are rude or disrespectful in general, and nine to 13 points more apt to be bothered by other behaviors."

I'll take my place with the 75%, thank you very much. Personally, I am not in the "a lot" class. It bothers me "somewhat", but I do feel it is extremely inappropriate in a place like ham radio, much more so than in the general public, where others are not in the position of judging all of us by the actions of a few.

Point made and confirmed, so I see no need to continue the discussion.

73 to all K4JF

[W9IND]

Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Feb. 02 2006,17:35)]Quote[/b] ]Quote (aa1mn @ Feb. 02 2006,13:23)
Quote
Another popular but erroneous statement. Proper legislation is always based in morals. Has to be. Isn't murder immoral? We legislate against it. Isn't endangering others with your car immoral? Certainly, therefore all the laws governing driving. Isn't it immoral to evade paying your fair share of the cost of government (taxes)? I could go on for pages and pages, but here is the bottom line:

Legislation MUST legislate morality, or it has no legitimate purpose.


So you're equating using the "F" word with murder, endangering others lives and not paying taxes?

Chuck, AA1MN

Of course not, Chuck. Read the comment again and note the word "another". Since you advocate a limited vocabulary, I strongly recomment looking that one up and adding it to your list of "good words", even if it does have 3 too many letters.

All of the subjects you mentioned are reflected in laws. All laws are not equal. A little education would let you see that some crimes are more serious than others, and to state that there are laws against all of them is not "equating" them.


If you're not equating using language with murder, driving, and paying taxes then why did you cite those examples in response to a post about that?

Chuck, AA1MN
I'm not sure if you honestly don't get his point or are deliberately skewing it in hopes of putting him on the defensive. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll respond to the former, because I understood his point perfectly.

He wasn't equating the SERIOUSNESS of murder with that of profane language. He was disputing your contention that "morality can't be legislated."

What he was saying was, of course morality can be legislated -- and many of the laws we live by do exactly that. They're passed by legislators who make their own moral judgments that they generally agree upon ... hopefully reflecting the will of the people in the process.

If you don't like his examples of legislating morality, I'll give you an even better one: Who determines the age of consent, and how? Should it be 21 years old ... 18 ... 16 ... 14 ... 12 ... 8 ... or nonexistent?

If the answer to that question isn't an example of legislating morality, what is?

Point being: Morality not only CAN be legislated, but is ... every day of our lives.

(And please, don't anyone respond with a straw man argument accusing me of equating profane language on the airwaves with the age of consent ...)

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Feb. 03 2006,09:14)]Fifty-eight percent of women say it bothers them a lot, compared with 38 percent of men
So 62% of men, which is the same gender as the vast majority of hams, are not bothered a lot. This is from your own numbers.

And you say this confirms something?

I agree, enough said. You are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

oh boy.

yes, this is quite enough.

[aa1mn]

Quote[/b] ]He wasn't equating the SERIOUSNESS of murder with that of profane language. He was disputing your contention that "morality can't be legislated."

What he was saying was, of course morality can be legislated -- and many of the laws we live by do exactly that. They're passed by legislators who make their own moral judgments that they generally agree upon ... hopefully reflecting the will of the people in the process.

If you don't like his examples of legislating morality, I'll give you an even better one: Who determines the age of consent, and how? Should it be 21 years old ... 18 ... 16 ... 14 ... 12 ... 8 ... or nonexistent?

If the answer to that question isn't an example of legislating morality, what is?

Point being: Morality not only CAN be legislated, but is ... every day of our lives.

So is the SERIOUSNESS of the morality of MURDER or DRIVING TO ENDAGER on the same par as that of what is deemed profane language or pornographic?

Are you, or he, proposing this by using both or either as an example by citing this?

More importantly are either you or he able to differentiate between the morality of causing harm to others through physical actions, such as murder or reckless behavior, and that of using words which, for the situation here, do not cause harm?

(Please note that I am refering to the general use of what many consider to be offensive words and language in a general sense in the above question NOT in the sense of what is considered slander or libel which may, in fact do harm to a person's reputation or livelihood)

The legislation of morality of which I refer was taken out of context, refering to behavior that should not or can not be legislated (like using words) as opposed to actions which endanger others. Really, now, if you could legislate people not to be an ass whole subsections of the population would be incarcerated.

Was I not clear enough in my previous posting or was the fault mine in underestimating people's ability to comprehend basic obvious distintions?

Anyway, hope this clears it up.

Chuck, AA1MN

[aa1mn]

Quote[/b] ]Ham radio is like cable???

I think not. You or anyone else may choose to treat both media the same -- i.e., change the channel/frequency whenever you see/hear something you don't like -- but the FCC has the final say on what is and isn't allowed on the airwaves. And we hams are just as subject to such regulations as AM, FM and TV broadcasters are.

In other words, we can all sit in here and scream about freedom of speech or personal morality till the cows come home, but that isn't relevant to the FCC's right to determine what is and isn't allowed on the airwaves.

As I've pointed out before ... if freedom of speech meant that anyone could say anything on the airwaves, Howard Stern wouldn't have had to go to satellite radio to be uncensored.


Okay, there's not real polite or diplomatic was to ask this so please realize I'm not intending this question to be as insulting as it seems:

Brian, is it that difficult to realize you have a choice in either listening to content on amateur radio or not by either shutting the rig off, pulling the plug, or switching the dial? #

I, and it's fair to say, most amateurs realize that the FCC has a say over what goes out over the amateur airwaves which it does not over cable. #The truth of it is, though, that there are things said over the amateur airwaves that are shouldn't be said according to FCC regulations (I do not condone this, by the way, just stating that some people knowingly do this) and when this happens everyone listening has a right to either listen or not ... simple as that.

There are those on the band that do follow FCC regulations whom I still find offensive be it through arrogance or their views ... I don't listen to them either. #Surprisingly enough, Brian, I'm sure there are those who find me to be offensive due to arrogance or my views who reach for the off switch or channel selection switch when my melodious voice and call sign appear -- good for them.

Again, Brian, no insult is intended by any of the above remarks. #All that is being said is that all of us have the ability to monitor the content we listen to, watch or read.
Further, speaking for myself, I'd much rather have the choice left up to me to make rather than leaving it up to the government (FCC) because I don't trust authority since they don't have my (our your) best interests at heart ... they only have theirs.

Best wishes, Brian, I hope I've been fair and thorough.

Chuck, AA1MN

[n7spy]

Quote[/b] (n5iut @ Jan. 28 2006,15:04)]Many years ago while attending HAMCOMM in Dallas, I listened to Riley Hollingsworth speak and he said something like this, "Do not say anything on the air that you can not say in front of a child or your elders (grandparents)."
Notwithstanding the people who have no qualms/apologies to give on cussing in front of their children and grandparents...

.. that's really cool advice http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[aa1mn]

Quote[/b] ]Quote (n5iut @ Jan. 28 2006,15:04)
Many years ago while attending HAMCOMM in Dallas, I listened to Riley Hollingsworth speak and he said something like this, "Do not say anything on the air that you can not say in front of a child or your elders (grandparents)."

Notwithstanding the people who have no qualms/apologies to give on cussing in front of their children and grandparents...

.. that's really cool advice #

Where do you think I learn most of my colorful language from?

God bless the children and their grandparents who taught me how to put the cranks of this world in their place in no uncertain terms ... I love 'em! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

AA1MN

[W0UZR]

Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Feb. 03 2006,09:53)]Quote[/b] ]Chuck, I am glad that you agree with my perspective, but I have to say that I disagree with your approach of insulting those who may disagree with you. All that accomplishes is to change a provocative exchange of ideas and opinions into bickering.


Thanks, Mike, for acknowledging the support provided on my part, always glad to lend it where it's due.

It's okay if you, and others, disagree with what views I hold. Please notice, however, any harsh tone on my part is reserved and dircted at those with a perspective too narrow to recoginze there are those who hold a valid view different than theirs ... insulting it may be but justified as well.

Also please not, insults were implied overtly or indirectly at myself for supporting that language that may be deemed offensive by some. Believe me, there is nothing demeaning to a person who uses such language, the only teacher I had who deserved any recognition at all was a college professor who frequently employeed such terms ... even to the point of calling me half-assed (once I straightened him out by explaining I was a complete ass we got along fine).

Take care.

Chuck, AA1MN
You keep saying "offended", or if we "find it offensive" what the heck is that?
I've heard language probably worse than you ever said it, or heard it said, ever since I was a little kid. See, my parents owned the building down town and there was a bar right down stairs underneath us. We lived upstairs.

And if a person wasn't raised to be, and or at least to act and sound intelligent, then they can't sound intelligent. If you swear and think it's all right, then you talk about some of us BEING IGNORANT.!! And the fact thay you are personally attacking people saying that they are ignorant puts you down at the same level as you think they are. I refuse to lower myself and say stuff to people that is in the same caliber of what they are saying to me.
And you think that's the way quality class people should act. And you are even PROUD OF IT !! Now that's REAL scary.......

So If it isn't the way you were raised, and taught, and you had parents that sounded intelligent, didn't swear, and acted with dignity, and if you swear on the radio or in public, did you learn much from them?

I for one am pretty fussy on what kind of company I keep. And if you want quality people to mingle with, then you have to come across as a good quality person, with good morals ethics. But if you are happy hanging around with pottymouths, people that say dirty jokes and that, then that's ALL I need to know about you to decide whether I want to be around you or not.

And if I hear you on the radio swearing, I'm going to do like I do when I hear anyone else swearing on there......

JUMP DOWN YOUR THROAT !!

And I'll do like I usually do after that, which is email Hollingsworth,
and I know a lot of OO's that I will write to too.

You might say that it won't do any good, but at least I'll be able to sleep better knowing that I tried to so something to keep the airways clean.
Well, that's just me. That's the way I am. I was raised different. I was brought up to care about things, and to value things. And try to preserve what decent atmosphere I have left !!

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] ]
So is the SERIOUSNESS of the morality of MURDER or DRIVING TO ENDAGER on the same par as that of what is deemed profane language or pornographic?

Are you, or he, proposing this by using both or either as an example by citing this?

More importantly are either you or he able to differentiate between the morality of causing harm to others through physical actions, such as murder or reckless behavior, and that of using words which, for the situation here, do not cause harm?

(Please note that I am refering to the general use of what many consider to be offensive words and language in a general sense in the above question NOT in the sense of what is considered slander or libel which may, in fact do harm to a person's reputation or livelihood)

The legislation of morality of which I refer was taken out of context, refering to behavior that should not or can not be legislated (like using words) as opposed to actions which endanger others. #Really, now, if you could legislate people not to be an ass whole subsections of the population would be incarcerated.

Was I not clear enough in my previous posting or was the fault mine in underestimating people's ability to comprehend basic obvious distintions?

Anyway, hope this clears it up.

Chuck, AA1MN



First, the question here is not which causes the most harm. The question is whether it causes harm or not.

If it does cause harm, then it is an issue subject to regulation by the public to protect against that harm being perpetrated upon innocent victims.

Exposing one's self in public is certainly not physically harmful to the victim. Using your logic, it doesn't "endanger" anyone. It follows from your logic, therefore, that legislating against people exposing themselves in public is NOT a suitable issue for the public to be involved in. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Your statement "using words which, for the situation here, do not cause harm?" also shows a very limited view of what harm "words" can cause. Words convey attitudes. Exposure of young, inexperienced minds to violent or abusive attitudes can cause the attitudes to become accepted and viewed as normative. This IS harmful. Since vulgarity invariably accompanies these violent or abusive attitudes it *is* within the public's purview to regulate whether it should be used on the public airwaves. Talk to a social worker about "pyschological abuse" sometime. Abuse doesn't have to be physical to be harmful.

It is NOT a matter of being able to turn the dial or of turning the set off. There are lots of young people who listen to the amateurs bands without a parent or guardian being present. There is no "prime time viewing hour" designated for amateur radio. Impressionable youth could be listening at any time. It is well within the purview of the public to legislate and regulate what is presented to these youth as acceptable behavior.

tim ab0wr

[aa1mn]

Quote[/b] ]You keep saying "offended", or if we "find it offensive" what the heck is that?
I've heard language probably worse than you ever said it, or heard it said, ever since I was a little kid. See, my parents owned the building down town and there was a bar right down stairs underneath us. We lived upstairs.

And if a person wasn't raised to be, and or at least to act and sound intelligent, then they can't sound intelligent. If you swear and think it's all right, then you talk about some of us BEING IGNORANT.!! And the fact thay you are personally attacking people saying that they are ignorant puts you down at the same level as you think they are. I refuse to lower myself and say stuff to people that is in the same caliber of what they are saying to me.
And you think that's the way quality class people should act. And you are even PROUD OF IT !! Now that's REAL scary.......

So If it isn't the way you were raised, and taught, and you had parents that sounded intelligent, didn't swear, and acted with dignity, and if you swear on the radio or in public, did you learn much from them?

I for one am pretty fussy on what kind of company I keep. And if you want quality people to mingle with, then you have to come across as a good quality person, with good morals ethics. But if you are happy hanging around with pottymouths, people that say dirty jokes and that, then that's ALL I need to know about you to decide whether I want to be around you or not.

And if I hear you on the radio swearing, I'm going to do like I do when I hear anyone else swearing on there......

JUMP DOWN YOUR THROAT !!

And I'll do like I usually do after that, which is email Hollingsworth,
and I know a lot of OO's that I will write to too.

You might say that it won't do any good, but at least I'll be able to sleep better knowing that I tried to so something to keep the airways clean.
Well, that's just me. That's the way I am. I was raised different. I was brought up to care about things, and to value things. And try to preserve what decent atmosphere I have left !!

Gee, Steve, do you want a medal or something for having heard more than I know? If not, what are you stating it for in the first place, bragging rights?

Further, where have I stated that I'm "proud of it"?

Is there perhaps some ambiquity that I merely do not find the use of certain words or terms that some may find offensive to be any big deal? This all that am have stated, Mr. Lassila, and that those who judge others negatively for using such terms rather than how they are used tend to have a limited mental capacity for not being able to see past this. Those who choose not to use such language, for whatever reason, but do not judge those who do I have no difficulty with.

Of course, in all fairness, it could be said that I am making negative judgements based on the language that certain others CHOOSE NOT TO USE so, it would seem, that it all evens out in this respect. It is my hope that those I have disagreed with on this thread, and who have disagreed with me, that we can still remain civil on these and other matters to come.

Futher, W0UZK, while it is publiclly known that I object to the FCC regulations barring the use of certain language on amateur and public broadcasting airwaves, I have never, knowingly, broken these rules. If I had not reasonably thought that I could comply with FCC policy I would not have spent the time, trouble, and money in obtaining an amateur radio license to begin with as this would have been counterproductive for all involved.

Having said this Steve, what makes you believe that I would be on the air swearing to begin with? Has any of the language I have posted on any threads here at QRZ.com lead you to believe that I have or would use language not allowed by the FCC while on the air?

Further, are you aware that OO's are just that? Observers? Unless I am mistaken, they are not employed by any agency of any legal backing are they, any more than a VE is, of which I am one (a VE not an OO for clarity's sake)? Further, considering that I do not at this time operate on HF and live in Massachusetts and you reside in MN how do you propose, personally, to monitor my transmissions anyway?

And yes, I do find certain off color humor entertaining but by no means all.

While we're at it, Mr. Lassila, could you please define the term of "jumping down my throat" please? I'd like to clarify that to find out if it's a veiled or open threat of some kind so that appropriate protective measures may be taken.

AA1MN

[W0UZR]

What got me going to start with is the personal attack calling the fellow ignorant. And now you are calling me me that !! Well, "Limited Mentality" pretty much means the same thing.

If you are giving me personal attacks, then you are leaving someone else alone, I guess.

And If you reread what I said, I said a Real Big word you missed....

~IF~

Didn't say that you use the language on the airl
Didn't say you wrote anything here on QRZ.

Out

I'm through, said my peace

[W9IND]

Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Feb. 03 2006,10:00)]Quote[/b] ]He wasn't equating the SERIOUSNESS of murder with that of profane language. He was disputing your contention that "morality can't be legislated."

What he was saying was, of course morality can be legislated -- and many of the laws we live by do exactly that. They're passed by legislators who make their own moral judgments that they generally agree upon ... hopefully reflecting the will of the people in the process.

If you don't like his examples of legislating morality, I'll give you an even better one: Who determines the age of consent, and how? Should it be 21 years old ... 18 ... 16 ... 14 ... 12 ... 8 ... or nonexistent?

If the answer to that question isn't an example of legislating morality, what is?

Point being: Morality not only CAN be legislated, but is ... every day of our lives.

So is the SERIOUSNESS of the morality of MURDER or DRIVING TO ENDAGER on the same par as that of what is deemed profane language or pornographic?

Are you, or he, proposing this by using both or either as an example by citing this?

More importantly are either you or he able to differentiate between the morality of causing harm to others through physical actions, such as murder or reckless behavior, and that of using words which, for the situation here, do not cause harm?

(Please note that I am refering to the general use of what many consider to be offensive words and language in a general sense in the above question NOT in the sense of what is considered slander or libel which may, in fact do harm to a person's reputation or livelihood)

The legislation of morality of which I refer was taken out of context, refering to behavior that should not or can not be legislated (like using words) as opposed to actions which endanger others. Really, now, if you could legislate people not to be an ass whole subsections of the population would be incarcerated.

Was I not clear enough in my previous posting or was the fault mine in underestimating people's ability to comprehend basic obvious distintions?

Anyway, hope this clears it up.

Chuck, AA1MN


Well, naturally, I don't consider foul language as big a deal as violent crime. My point was that quite a few state and federal laws do, in fact, legislate morality.

It's not as if I lie awake at night worrying about who's saying what on the amateur bands ... certainly I've heard worse. On the other hand, since my license and our amateur bands are a privilege, not a right, I regard them with a sense of pride and stewardship.

So, just as I wouldn't dump trash in my new car (if, in fact, I owned one), I don't find it especially difficult to avoid uttering the kind of verbiage that would get me bleeped on TV and radio shows. In fact, I'd be embarrassed if, while demonstrating my hobby to, say, a group of junior high kids and their parents, some amateur operator happened to launch a tirade of four-letter words on the frequency I was monitoring.

All I'm really saying is that (1) freedom of speech does not entitle us to say anything we want on the airwaves ... obviously the FCC gets to weigh in on this one; and (2) while adult language doesn't faze me in everyday life, it's not something we need to tolerate on our own bands -- especially since it's contrary to the FCC laws we all have to live by. Please note that I have no problem tolerating it on cable and satellite radio; I just see no reason to allow it on our own cherished airwaves.

So ... no sermons here, just a recognition of what is and isn't legal and appropriate.

73 to all,
Brian

[W9IND]

Quote[/b] (aa1mn @ Feb. 03 2006,10:26)]Okay, there's not real polite or diplomatic was to ask this so please realize I'm not intending this question to be as insulting as it seems:

Brian, is it that difficult to realize you have a choice in either listening to content on amateur radio or not by either shutting the rig off, pulling the plug, or switching the dial?

I, and it's fair to say, most amateurs realize that the FCC has a say over what goes out over the amateur airwaves which it does not over cable. The truth of it is, though, that there are things said over the amateur airwaves that are shouldn't be said according to FCC regulations (I do not condone this, by the way, just stating that some people knowingly do this) and when this happens everyone listening has a right to either listen or not ... simple as that.

There are those on the band that do follow FCC regulations whom I still find offensive be it through arrogance or their views ... I don't listen to them either. Surprisingly enough, Brian, I'm sure there are those who find me to be offensive due to arrogance or my views who reach for the off switch or channel selection switch when my melodious voice and call sign appear -- good for them.

Again, Brian, no insult is intended by any of the above remarks. All that is being said is that all of us have the ability to monitor the content we listen to, watch or read.
Further, speaking for myself, I'd much rather have the choice left up to me to make rather than leaving it up to the government (FCC) because I don't trust authority since they don't have my (our your) best interests at heart ... they only have theirs.

Best wishes, Brian, I hope I've been fair and thorough.

Chuck, AA1MN




Thanks for the clarification, Chuck ... and no offense taken, then or now. In all honesty, I simply enjoy a lively debate as much as I think you do, and this is a topic that interests me.

To (hopefully) clarify my own points:

1. I generally agree with you that no one is forced to listen to anything he doesn't want to hear.

2. My previous remarks about freedom of speech weren't directed at you specifically -- I was merely pointing out that the Constitution doesn't guarantee us the right to fill our airwaves with George Carlin's "Seven Words You Can't Say on Television."

3. Like you, I don't worship at the altar of the government or the FCC (in fact, I could compile a rather lengthy list of what I'd do differently if someone put me in charge of either entity ... but strangely, no one's ever asked).

4. That said, with regard to what's allowed on our frequencies, I draw the line at the same place the feds do. In other words, if I subscribed to the Playboy Channel, I wouldn't expect it to be appropriate for my Great Aunt Tillie (unless she's quite the nursing home hottie) ... but on the other hand, when I'm listening to HF, I wouldn't expect to have to apologize to the parents of a troop of Boy/Girl Scouts during a ham radio demonstration.

Hope that makes some kind of sense ... again, I'm not on my own little morality crusade ...

Thanks again and 73,
Brian, W9IND

[n5iut]

Just because one has the right to say things on the air that one would not say in front of a child or their elders, should they?

Should I or any ham express themselves in a way on the air on in an Internet group that can not be expressed in a middle school class room or at a retirement community luncheon?

Many times I have demonstrated live on the air HF SSB radio to middle school students, groups at a local museum and assembled scouts. I have held the demonstrations morning, noon and at night. HF is the best way to show these children that Amateur radio does not require an infrastructure and display the global nature of the hobby/service.

My big fear during these demonstrations is that I will need to turn the VFO quickly to keep the words coming from the radio from reaching the young audience. I amplify the audio using powered computer type speakers. During the active part of the demonstration, the audio fills the room.

Yes, I can turn the VFO but by then the damage to the integrity of the hobby/service is done.

It happened to me once. The group of students that heard the words from the radio shifted in their seats, some laughed a nervous laugh, and some covered their mouths and looked at their fellow students. It is an awkward look I received from the adult that invited me. From then on I continued my demonstration but the words that they heard were a distraction for the rest of the event.

What a disappointment. I am doing my best to grow this hobby/service with more young people. Most hams just sit around doing nothing at all to grow the hobby/service.

Become a Volunteer Examiner, a radio merit badge councilor, demonstrate Amateur radio to students, offer to help out at local schools, teach amateur radio classes for the local club! Get out of you own shack and do something!

Yes, you have the right to say what you want. But should you say anything on the air that you would not say in front of a child or an elder?

Paul Guido, N5IUT

[n8ary]

Sexual or excretory? Would those two words be objectionable because they refer to sexual and excretory subjects?

[aa1mn]

Quote[/b] ]Sexual or excretory? Would those two words be objectionable because they refer to sexual and excretory subjects?

Interestingly enough, a couple of my favorite expressions are "anal orifice" and slimy excretion". Both are quite descriptive and, oddly enough, able to be used without being classified as offensive, crude or being banned over broadcast bands as they are not dee